HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27298 of 2025 Akhilesh Chandra Yadav And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s)

Versus The State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Asheesh Mani Tripathi, Manu Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

Heard Mr. Manu Mishra, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1 and 2.

Perused the record.

Petitioner- Akhilesh Chandra Yadav And 3 Others have approached this Court by means of present writ petition challenging the F.I.R. dated 12.11.2025, lodged by first informant/respondent-3 Santosh Shahi, which was registered as Case Crime No. 629 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 324 (4), 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 309(6) BNS, Police Station- Cantt. District-

Gorakhpur.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in aforesaid case crime number. The F.I.R. impugned in present writ petition has been engineered by the first informant/respondent-3 as a counter blast to the F.I.R. dated 5.8.2025, lodged by first informant Akhilesh Chandra Yadav petitiononer-1 in present writ petition.

It is then contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the day, date and time column of the F.I.R., the date of the occurrence has been mentioned as 25.7.2025, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.11.2025. First informant/respondent-3 filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 2.9.2025 i.e. after 38 days of the occurrence. The said application was allowed, and thereafter, the impugned F.I.R. came to be registered. The impugned F.I.R. is ad-verbatim copy of the application under section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. filed by first informant/respondent-3. With reference to same, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the body of the application/F.I.R. there is no explanation explaining the delay/laches in filing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C./lodging the F.I.R.

It is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned F.I.R. is highly belated. Since the delay/laches in filing the application/lodging the F.I.R. have not been explained, therefore, the criminal prosecution of petitioner on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained. To buttress his submission, he has relied upon the judgements of Supreme Court in (i). P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, (ii). P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8), (iii). Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine 1732 , (iv). Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176, (v) Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 938 and (vi) Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that if the FIR has been lodged with delay but no plausible explanation has come forward explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, then the criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained.

In the case of Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (Supra), the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the FIR.

The Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791 quashed the conviction of accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR. The impugned F.I.R. is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of the Court and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

Per contra, the the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. He submits that since impugned F.I.R. discloses the commission of cognizable offence, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. However, the learne